Um, the Microtek 120f IS the Polaroid 120--look at the case!! Microtek was
making it for
Polaroid on a contract basis, and when Polaroid's difficulties forced it to
drop this
product Microtek just started putting its own name on it. It has the same
strengths and
weaknesses it has always had.
It appears the lens has a smaller working aperture than the Nikon--it doesn't
seem to have
nearly the trouble keeping everything in focus. It also has a more diffuse
light source,
which lessens the "Callier effect" that can make true B&W negs block up on the
Nikon.
Weaknesses include no ICE (although the diffuse light source helps de-emphasize
dust, and
there is a software-only dust solution that kinda works) and color
registration. (this one
may or may not be a problem for you, but I sent two units back for this, and
finally gave
up and settled on a third unit that wasn't quite as bad.)
Specifically, even the "not as bad" scanner had areas that were three pixels
out of
registration. Note that this is NOT just a
shift-the-offending-channel-in-Photoshop
problem; it comes and goes in bands, and appears to be a problem in consistency
of movement
of the scan head. It also means that a straight grayscale scan, which scans all
three
channels and averages them, has bands of slight blurring. Oddly, this isn't
very noticeable
in 100 speed film, but on fast film you can see the grain come and go!! The
fix for
grayscale is to scan as color neg and pick only one channel to use. At this
point you've
got a pretty good scan, better than the Nikon, but if you have very fine,
high-contrast
diagonal lines you may see a little waviness.
To me, the bottom line is that the Polaroid/Microtek is a better B&W scanner,
the Nikon is
better for color.
Bruce wrote:
> on 7/9/2003 4:00 PM, filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk at
> filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Topic: Microtek Artixscan 120tf
> > ==========================
> > Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:57:06 +1200
> > From: "Rob Suisted" <robsuisted@naturespic.com>
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
> > Kia ora,
> >
> > Just returned from a break on this forum so please forgive me if this has
> > been well covered.....(as I expect!)
> >
> > What has been the hands on experience with the Microtek 120tf as opposed to
> > the Nikon 8000ED and polaroid 120 equivalents? It seems like a reasonable
> > price and performer, but are there any major idiosyncrasies to be aware of?
> >
> > Also, having used Digital Ice on Coolscan for years, how does the Microtek
> > version compare - useful, adequate, or hopeless?
> >
> > Or, could you point me to any good hands on reviews or proper tests to save
> > your time? I've spent a lot of time searching but have found very little
> > hands on imformation as yet.
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > Rob Suisted
> > New Zealand
> > www.naturespic.com
>
> Rob,
>
> I have been using the Nikon 8000. It is capable of making gorgeous scans. It
> is not perfect however. Ice dust removal is great. Gem grain removal works
> well half the time and takes way too long.
>
> There is some bug in the software that clips highlights in negative scans,
> but is not obvious on 95% of negative scans. Vuescan software fixes this
> nicely but is not so user friendly as nikonscan, especially for 35mm film
> holder. Worse, I must throw away the nikon software in order to run vuescan.
>
> You really will need to buy a glass film holder for 6x6 or larger film, and
> you will get occasional newton's rings from it as well. One can not focus
> the entire frame well without the glass film holder with large film. And it
> costs $230, yuck.
>
> Lastly, my scanner made some bad banging noise and I've had to send it back
> for warranty repair. I hope it works well when I get it back.
>
> Believe it or not, I'm still happy with the purchase compared to the
> alternatives in it's price range. I tried out the minolta multi pro and
> found it not capable of acceptable scans. The Polaroid has no ICE dust
> removal and may go out of business at any moment. The microtek may be a good
> choice if you can live without infrared dust detection, and it's less
> expensive.
>
> -Bruce
>
> Visit my website at:
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
